De De Johnson

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 18, 1948

77 N.L.R.B. 730 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of DE DE JOHNSON , EMPLOYER AND PETITIONER and
INTERNATIONAL LADIES ' GARMENT WORKERS UNION, A. F. L.,
UNION
Case No. 01-RM-29.Decided May 18, 1948
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held befoie a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization named below is currently organizing
the employees of the Employer.
3. No question concerning representation of employees of the Em-
ployer exists within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act, under the following circumstances:
The Employer is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of
ladies' garments and sportswear in Los Angeles, California.
On or about February 5, 1948, local organizers of International
Ladies' Garment Workers Union interviewed an officer of the Em-
ployer in reference to the Union's program to organize the employees
of all manufacturers of ladies' garments in Los Angeles. During
the course of the conversation, the Union's organizers and the Em-
ployer's representative discussed the Union's plan to bring all these
employees under closed-shop contracts with the Union. The Union's
representative asked the Employer if the Employer was ready to
sign a contract with the Union. The Employer's representative
refused.
On February 9, 1948, the Employer received a letter dated Feb-
ruary 6, 1948, advising the•einployer of the Union's intense organizing
campaign, outlining the clauses contained in the Union's agreements,
77 N. L. R. B., No. 119.
730
DE DE JOHNSON 731
and inviting the Employer to consult the Chairman of the Settlement
Committee of the Union at once. The Employer did not reply.
On or about February 17, 1948, the Union began picketing the
building in which the Employer and approximately nine other gar-
ment manufacturers carry on their operations, for the purpose of
persuading the employees working in the building to join the Union
and to induce the employers to recognize the Union and to sign closed-
shop contracts covering their employees.
On or about February 16, 1948, the Employer filed the petition in
this proceeding.
The Union states that it did not at any time claim to represent a
majority of the Employer's employees. At the hearing the Union's
representative expressly denied that the Union represented a majority
of them. We find that the Union has withdrawn any claim to represent
a majority of the employees which may have arisen from its prior
conduct.'
ORDER
On the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
the petition is hereby dismissed.
Ci 1AIIi-IAN HERZOG and MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Order.
3 Matter of Bernard Klint. Grace Klint , David K. Nyberg and Emma Nyberg, co-partners,
d/b/a NY-Lint Tool it Manufacturing Co, 77 N L R . B 642 , and Matter of Louella
Balleriao , 77 N L R B. 738.